Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-05-13
SUPREME COURT.
Department One.

| SACRAMENTO, May 70, 1857
The Court met pursuant to adjournment
] Present-Mekinstry. j., presiding; Patterson, J.
Temple, j.; Paulsell, Deputy Clerk; Finkler
| Bailif
Chicago Quartz Mining Company vs. Oliver
On motion of Reardon, ordered that the order
| of submission heretofore made on May II, 1887
| be set aside and appellant allowed ten DAYS 10
| file brief, cause to be thereon submitted.
Estate OF Sullenberger-On motion of Hink-
son, cause ordered submitted upon briefs on
| file.
| Quinn VS.. Dresbach ct al-On motion of Ball,
ordered that respondent be allowed twenty
days to file brief, appellant twenty days to re-
| ply, cause to be thereupon submitted.
Mccormick VS.. North British and NJ Insur-
| ance Company-Continued for the term.
Estate OF Poten-Cause ordered submitted
upon briefs on file.
Houghton VS. Allen ct al-Cause argued by
benson for appellant, Catlin for respondent, and
submitted.
Miller VS.. Thayer ct al-Argued by Rhoads
for appellant, Beatty for respondent and SUBJ
mitted.
sullivan ct al. VS.. Wallace ct al-Appellant
allowed twenty days to file brief cause to be
| thereupon submitted.
Reynolds VS.. LincOlnACause ordered submit
ted upon briefs on file.
Swamp Land Reclamation District No. 407 vs.
Wilcox-Ordered that appellant be allowed to
file addenda to brief on file; further ordered
that respondent be allowed three DAYS to file
brief, appellantsten days to reply, cause to be
Swamp Land Reclamation District No. 4O7 VS..
Ruble-Same as above.
Hagle VS.. Hagle-Ordered that cause be SUBJ
mitted on briefs on file.
Corbin VS.. Wachhorst-Ordered that appellant
be allowed ten days to file brief, cause to be
thereupon submitted.
People VS.. Dobbins-On motion of the Attor-
ney-General and pursuant TO stipulation filed
herein, ordered that RESPONDER be allowed
| twenty days to file brief appellant five days
to reply, cause thereupon to be submitted.
West, administrator, VS.. Russell admins
tratOr-OrQered that aDDallant he aIlowad
| twenty days to file brief respondents twenty
days to reply. cause to be thereupon submitted.
People vs. Parvin ct al-On motion Of Nc
Kune, cause ordered submitted upon briefs on
file.
- Hoppe VS.. Johnson ct al-On motion of Tay-
lor, ordered that appellant be allowed fifteen
mitted
Conner VS.. Stanley-On argument.
Department Two.
SACRAMENTO, May u. 1887.
Court met pursuant to adjournment. Pres
ent-T0rnton, j., presiding Sharpstein, j.;
Mcfarland, j.; Williams, Deputy Clerk; Finkler
Bailiff
McCaffery VS. Rubenstein-On motion of Dud-
ley for respondent and pursuant TO stipulation
ON file, ordered that the appeal herein be and
the same is hereby dismissed.
San joaquin Valley Bank VS.. Bowers-On mo-
ton OF Budd, ordered that appellant be allowed
submitted.
Carey vs. Carey-On motion of Dudley, it is
ordered that appellant be allowed twenty days
to hle brief, respondent twenty days to reply,
appellant twenty days to reply thereto cause to
be thereupon submitted.
Tubbs VS.. Wilhout-On motion of Hall for APP
pellant. cause ordered submitted on briefs on
Reed VS.. Reed On motion of Elliott for ap-
fiie ~''''-' '1''''e' oN ''ieiS oii
Crassmore VS.. Page ct al.-On motion of Muen-
ter Tor appellant, cause ordered submitted on
briefs On file.
Carey VS.. Carey-On motion of Woods. ordered
that appellant be allowed fifteen days from date
to file brief respondent fifteen days to reply,
appellant five days to reply thereto, cause to be
thereupon submitted.
Hogan VS.. Saunders-On motion of Woods,
IL Is ordered that appellant be allowed twenty
days to file brief respondent twenty days to
reply, appellant ten days to reply thereto, cause
to be thereupon submitted.
Hogan VS.. Cowell-Same order
City of Stockton VS.. Western Fire and Marine
insurance Company-On motion of Terry or
dered that appellant be allowed fifteen days to
ME brief respondent fifteen days to reply, cause
to be thereupon submitted.
Johant VS.. c. p. X. Ron motion of Dudley
and pursuant to stipulation on file, ordered that
appellant have twenty days from date, respond
ent twenty days to reply, appellant five DAYS
to reply thereto, cause 10 be thereupon sub
mitted.
Monroe VS.. Fahl-On motion of Muenter for
appellant, cause ordered submitted on briefs on
file.
Grupe VS.. Byers ct al On motion of Muenter,
cause ordered submitted on briefs on file for APP
pellant further ordered that Louttit Woods d
Levinsky be allowed TO file brief on behalf of
appellant as GmicUs curia, respondent ten DAYS
TO reply, cause to be thereupon submitted
Smith VS.. City of Stockton-0n motion of
Woods, ordered that appellant be allowed five
days to file brief, cause to be thereupon sub
mitted.
Houlb ct al vs. Baldwin-On motion of Woods.
ordered that appellant be allowed twenty days
/, to file brief, respondent twenty days to reply,
appellant twenty days to reply thereto, cause 10
| be thereupon submitted.
Estate of Carpenter-On motion of Carter or
dered that respondent be allowed twenty DAYS
to file brief appellant ten days to reply, cause TO
be thereupon submitted.
Roberts VS. Eldred-On motion Of Woods Or
dered that respondent be allowed twenty DAYS
to file brief, appellant ten days to reply cause
to be thereupon submitted.
Barnhart VS.. Fulkerth ct al-Argued by Tur-
ner for appellant Terry for respondent ordered
that respondent be allowed ten days to file briet
appellant ten days to reply, cause to be there
upon submitted.
Estate of Crozier vs. paggett-Argued by Terry
| for appellant. Elliott for respondent ordered
| that respondent be allowed twenty days to file
| brief, appellant ten days to reply, cause to be
| thereupon submitted.
| Fox VS.. Stockton c. II. and A Works-Argued
! by Terry and Turner for appellants Dudley for
| respondent and submitted.
McClain VS.. Buck-On motion of Sprague or
dered that the order of continuance be set aside:
| further ordered that the cause be submitted on
briefs on file.
Adjourned for the term.